927 F.

2d 596
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of

unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
Alexandra LADICOS, Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
No. 90-1503.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 1991.
Decided March 8, 1991.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration and Naturalization

Service.
Augustus Anninos, Norfolk, Va., for petitioner.
Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant
Director, Stewart Deutsch, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for
respondent.
I.N.S.
AFFIRMED.
Before PHILLIPS and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:

Alexandra Ladicos, a citizen of Greece, entered the United States on June 3,

1985, as a visitor for pleasure authorized to stay until December 2, 1985. Her
son, Nicholas Axarlis, arrived on September 11, 1985, as a visitor for pleasure
authorized to stay until March 10, 1986. In July 1985, Mrs. Ladicos married a
United States citizen, who filed a visa petition on her behalf. However, on
November 12, 1985, the parties separated, and the husband withdrew the visa
petition. The withdrawal had the effect of automatically revoking approval of
the petition, which resulted in the denial of her application for status as a
permanent resident. The Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") gave
her until December 12, 1985, to voluntarily depart.

Both Mrs. Ladicos and her son stayed past their departure dates. They were
issued orders to show cause, which charged them with overstaying their
visitation periods. Following a hearing, they were found deportable and were
permitted to depart voluntarily in lieu of deportation.

The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal on January 31, 1990.
It found that Mrs. Ladicos was not entitled to a hearing on the denial of
permanent resident status and that the circumstances surrounding the
dissolution of her marriage were not relevant.

On a petition for review to this Court, Mrs. Ladicos claims that she was entitled
to a hearing from the INS to determine whether her marriage was fraudulent.
She claims that once the petition was filed by the husband and approved, her
status became permanent. She rests on a self-styled equal protection argument-she claims the government unconstitutionally inquired into her family's living
arrangements.

An approved visa petition is simply a preliminary step in the visa application

process. Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1308
(9th Cir.1984). It does not guarantee a visa or a right to remain in the United
States. Id. When a citizen spouse files a visa petition on behalf of the alien
spouse, the citizen may withdraw his petition whether or not approval has
issued. See Pacheco Pereira v. INS, 342 F.2d 422, 423 (1st Cir.1965).
Revocation of approval is automatic. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 205.1(a)(1). Because the
right rests with the citizen spouse who wishes to keep the family together, the
alien spouse is not entitled to notice or a hearing before revocation. Id.; Wright
v. INS, 379 F.2d 275, 276 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 928 (1967). Finally,
since the alien spouse has no vested right to permanent status after the approval
of a visa petition, only the citizen spouse has standing to challenge the agency's
revocation. Joseph v. Landon, 679 F.2d 113, 116-17 (7th Cir.1982).

In sum, Mrs. Ladicos had no right to a hearing on the circumstances of her

marriage, she obtained no rights after the initial approval of her husband's visa
petition filed on her behalf, and her equal protection argument has no
application to the facts of this case. Without the visa petition, her status became
that of a nonpreference applicant for immigrant status. Neither she nor her son
challenges the evidence that they are not entitled to nonpreference immigrant
status or that they have overstayed their visitation periods. Accordingly, we
find that the deportation orders for both were supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. See
Hernandez-Garza v. INS, 882 F.2d 945, 947 (5th Cir.1989).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.